SEC To Re-Investigate Jobs?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

With Fred Anderson's recent statement (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/04/24/anderson-blames-jobs-in-backdating/) claiming he warned Apple CEO Steve Jobs of the financial and legal repercussions of his backdated option grant, SiliconValley.com reports that the SEC may have renewed interest in Jobs (http://www.siliconvalley.com/ci_5754083?nclick_check=1).

"The SEC would typically find (allegations such as Anderson's) important," added Kathleen Bisaccia, former chief of enforcement for the SEC in San Francisco.

[...]

Lawyers familiar with the case say Anderson's statements could prompt government lawyers to examine whether Jobs made any false statements to investigators. "From a due diligence perspective, you'd have to look at it," said one former prosecutor familiar with securities fraud probes.

The article goes on to point out that Mr. Anderson's own conduct could come under further scruitiny. Lawyers familiar with the case have reported to SiliconValley.com that Anderson took his 5th Amendment right not to testify during the investigation. Therefore, his election to disclose this information in a formal press release after he settled with the SEC is quite interesting indeed.

The SEC has not yet formally responded to Mr. Anderson's statements, although Apple's Board of Directors has expressed confidence (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/04/25/apple-board-members-response-to-fred-anderson/) in Mr. Jobs.

[longofest]

I really wanted to add the following to the article :rolleyes:

In other related news, Apple has issued a statement officially apologizing for releasing a dead horse into the wild that news and rumor sites like to beat

[Chaszmyr]

Even if what Anderson said is true, would it really matter? Jobs still isn't the one that fabricated false records of a board meeting.

[Cult Follower]

Can't these people leave well enough alone.

[longofest]

Even if what Anderson said is true, would it really matter? Jobs still isn't the one that fabricated false records of a board meeting.

If the SEC finds out that Jobs made innaccurate statements to them, Jobs could land in a lot of hot water. If he made false statements... well, lets just say game over.

That's IF he made false statements, mind you. Currently, I'd believe Jobs over Anderson, given the information we have today.

[AlBDamned]

If the SEC finds out that Jobs made innaccurate statements to them, Jobs could land in a lot of hot water. If he made false statements... well, lets just say game over.

That's IF he made false statements, mind you. Currently, I'd believe Jobs over Anderson, given the information we have today.

it would seem awfully stupid of Anderson to make a comment - actualy issue a press release - without some foundation, because he would have known the repercussions of doing so. With that in mind the problem is definitely not over for Jobs.

Saying that, this woman, Kathleen Bisaccia, is former chief of enforcement for the SEC in San Francisco, so she's speculating herself. it could well be that the SEC has already dealt with this issue in its own investigation, hence the delayed response while they get it down in writing all nice, tight and legal.

[vertgo]

From what I gather, I think that Anderson's lawyer wouldn't let him say anything that would get him into more trouble, and I bet that he's released this information to them already. As a result of his own freedom of speech, i think he just felt it necessary that he said this so that his career isn't cut short. Of course if i made as much money as any of those guys, i woulda retired a long time ago.

[nagromme]

I don't know if Steve did anything wrong or not, but CEOs get away with too much these days, and his creative vision doesn't justify anything. So if he DID do something illegal (big if), I won't object to seeing him spend some minimum-security time, followed by demotion from CEO to some kind of special advisor, with the same input he always had... at the reduced salary of 75 cents :)

[ibook30]

I don't know if Steve did anything wrong or not, but CEOs get away with too much these days, and his creative vision doesn't justify anything. So if he DID do something illegal (big if), I won't object to seeing him spend some minimum-security time, followed by demotion from CEO to some kind of special advisor, with the same input he always had... at the reduced salary of 75 cents :)

It's the accountant vs. the rock star.... let's see who wins.

[aristotle]

This is indeed a dead horse. The SEC already said they will not pursue further investigations against Apple because Steve Jobs and the rest of Apple had co-operated to well with their inquiries. This statement came "after" Anderson made those statements.

It gets to be a little tiring when reporters like this make up news about an already dead story in order to justify their salaries.

[longofest]

This is indeed a dead horse. The SEC already said they will not pursue further investigations against Apple because Steve Jobs and the rest of Apple had co-operated to well with their inquiries. This statement came "after" Anderson made those statements.

Not going after Apple and not going after Steve Jobs are two different things.

That being said, yes I agree this story feels old. But as long as there is news about it, this is a very important story, so unfortunately we need to cover it. We don't want to be in a position where we don't cover it, and all of the sudden Steve Jobs is sacked as CEO and we have to report the entire back-story! :o

[SiliconAddict]

Can't these people leave well enough alone.

And yet if this was Bill Gates.......... :mad:

If he did something wrong bring it on. If not close the books.

[iAlan]

I don't know if what Anderson said is true or not. It is not up to me to decide given the information I do or don’t have.

[STANDS ON SOAPBOX]

But, as said elsewhere in this and related posts, CEO's in general seem to be under tighter scrutiny - and rightfully so given their positions - and some are engaging in questionable activity, maybe not illegal, but questionable. And they should be accountable. It has happened at a few companies in the past and should continue if justified.

Now, all things considered, I think the media has a responsibility to society that it seems to have either forgotten or ignored. And that is balanced reporting of the facts. Too often someone stands up and says something that may or may not be true and before you know it, it is reported as 'fact' all over the place. And worse still are opinionated news reporters - most notable Fox News - who claim their opinions are facts and their viewers end up believing them.

And at the end of the day no-one apologizes for the false accusations or supposed news commentary when what was widely reported is proven inaccurate.

And don't give me any of those free speech excuses - free speech should not allow you to make whatever statements you feel like especially if these statements are not based on fact or substantiatable (is that a word?).

So, if Anderson is telling the truth then the SEC should apply whatever sanctions and/or penalties the law requires. If what he says in not true then the media should make it clear as such -- and even devote as much time refuting the claim as they have reporting it.

[\STAND ON SOAPBOX]

[Macbie]

Anderson should know he could get him self in a lot trouble again if SEC decide to review this case again
I think Anderson probably told SEC about this in the beginning or during the investigation, I really doubt if he wanted to cry foul he will do it after the SEC went easy on him

[MacNut]

Anderson must have gotten a plea deal to cough up info on Apple.

[Macbie]

unless he got good evidences otherwise it's just he said he said stuff, if SEC really are after Stevie they should have already done it the day they settled the deal with Anderson

[MrCrowbar]

I really wanted to add the following to the article :rolleyes:

In other related news, Apple has issued a statement officially apologizing for releasing a dead horse into the wild that news and rumor sites like to beat


PINIATA!!!!! Beat it up and get the iPods and mac Minis that fall out!!! :o :p

[TheBobcat]

Again, how can anything Thompson says be really proved or disproved?

How much hard evidence could this man produce that the SEC couldn't have found on their own? And his testimony alone is worth squat, it's his word versus Jobs', and only one is an admitted criminal.

All this article says is that the SEC may just make sure no detail was overlooked with Jobs, but I highly doubt a convicted man's PR stunt would alone would lead to a formal large-scale investigation of Jobs after the fact. And if this was the last piece in the puzzle to build a case against Jobs, I doubt the SEC would have made the comments they did a few days ago.

[Uragon]

Does this means that SEC did not do their job properly during the investigation? Or would they simply, take Mr. Anderson's new statement as a fact? I read somewhere (not sure though, now) that SEC was satisfied with the investigation and cleared jobs.

[Peace]

Not going after Apple and not going after Steve Jobs are two different things.

That being said, yes I agree this story feels old. But as long as there is news about it, this is a very important story, so unfortunately we need to cover it. We don't want to be in a position where we don't cover it, and all of the sudden Steve Jobs is sacked as CEO and we have to report the entire back-story! :o

By not going after Apple it implies there is no person left on the board of directors to "go after" because Apple is run by the board.If they were to go after Jobs they never would have exonerated Apple.

[Tacitus]

What will be interesting is when they take Heinen to trial. At trial an awful lot of skeletons start falling out of cupboards.

[mac jones]

If Anderson is not lying Jobs is finished.

Remember, It doesn't matter if they prosecute or not. Jobs would be a total scum bag to let others take the fall and he would be better off making license plates

IMHO and (hopefully) yours

I've already mentally acclimated to moving back to Windows ;)

(just kidding-about Windows ,that is)

as a note:
I remember being somewhat surprised when Steve announced the iPhone. He seemed to make such a big deal out of it. I couldn't help thinking something was amiss and right then thought that he may be guilty and distracted and maybe losing it a little . It wasn't that the iPhone was bad or anything, it just seemed that he was inordinately excited about it.

[STLSigns]

"Tell me, Mr. Anderson... what good is a phone call... if you're unable to speak?"

[surferfromuk]

as a note:
I remember being somewhat surprised when Steve announced the iPhone. He seemed to make such a big deal out of it. I couldn't help thinking something was amiss and right then thought that he may be guilty and distracted and maybe losing it a little . It wasn't that the iPhone was bad or anything, it just seemed that he was inordinately excited about it.

That's a real shame you see things that way. Your life must be a living hell!

I'm GENUINELY serious here - Have you sought professional help for this condition ?

[STLSigns]

"Why, Mr. Anderson? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something? For more than just your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. The temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desparately to justify an existence that is without meaning or porpose."

[mac jones]

That's a real shame you see things that way. Your life must be a living hell!

I'm GENUINELY serious here - Have you sought professional help for this condition ?

Your GENUINELY?

That's very emphatic, you were obviously VERY excited about the iPhone.

Well your not alone.

[Fukui]

Why is this news??
Everyone already knew steve was aware about the backdating, he just wasn't cognizant of the legal repercussions. The SEC knew that, so Anderson's statement isn't revelatory in any way that I can see.... he's just trying to say "its not my fault."

[surferfromuk]

Your GENUINELY?

That's very emphatic, you were obviously VERY excited about the iPhone.

Well your not alone.

I'm only trying to help....

Yes I am excited about iPhone - It's virtually a mac' in my pocket - what Apple fan wouldn't be excited about that ?

[Chimaera]

Why is this news??
Everyone already knew steve was aware about the backdating, he just wasn't cognizant of the legal repercussions. The SEC knew that, so Anderson's statement isn't revelatory in any way that I can see.... he's just trying to say "its not my fault."

Maybe the SEC did accept that Jobs was unaware of the legal issues and as such chose to cut him some leeway. Unfortunately the CFO testifying that he'd made Jobs aware of the issue would at best cast doubt on that defence, if not knacker it completely.

The SEC are these days absolute death on improper accounting practices so if they do get sufficient information to prosecute I would expect them to throw the book at Jobs (and with good reason).

Personally I have no idea what really happened but have to let the SEC do their job - if that means reopening the investigation then so be it, if not then fine.

[mccldwll]

None of this is news and all is gossip/rumors/spin/distraction, pushed by hedge funds, etc., intended to create uncertainty and volatility in Apple stock. Like clockwork, in the past couple years, good news at Apple has been accompanied by "SJ ate my dog" caliber stories. Further, IMHO, the SEC is unlikely to do anything since any action against SJ would hurt Apple and the shareholders, thus hurting one of the few innovative US companies doing well on the world stage. The Bush administration has enough trouble without shooting itself in the other foot.

[Digitalclips]

Anderson must have gotten a plea deal to cough up info on Apple.

Or make up info ...

[BenRoethig]

If the SEC finds out that Jobs made innaccurate statements to them, Jobs could land in a lot of hot water. If he made false statements... well, lets just say game over.

That's IF he made false statements, mind you. Currently, I'd believe Jobs over Anderson, given the information we have today.

If he did make false statements, that would be perjury. Not only would he not be able be an officer in any publicly traded company, he would be spend a couple years hanging with Scooter Libby in a federal prison. That's not so good.

[MongoTheGeek]

If he did make false statements, that would be perjury. Not only would he not be able be an officer in any publicly traded company, he would be spend a couple years hanging with Scooter Libby in a federal prison. That's not so good.

But a press release can't be perjury.

Its possible that Anderson is trying to throw Jobs under the bus. Its also possible that Steve knew about what was going on an that it was illegal. Then again I think all of this happened pre-Sarbains-Oxley(damn scary that the spell checker recognizes both names!)

[mac jones]

Ya know,

I really, really hope this ain't true. I will feel pretty let down.

I think we all had a soft spot for the Jobster. If he turns out to be a another callous, self serving, arrogant, egocentric, (ok, i'm getting carried away)

then....I don't know.

I mean,

Bummer man.

Stevie, say it isn't so!

[brianus]

Ya know,

I really, really hope this ain't true. I will feel pretty let down.

I think we all had a soft spot for the Jobster. If he turns out to be a another callous, self serving, arrogant, egocentric, (ok, i'm getting carried away)

Well, we knew all that already. The only issue for me is, what happens to Apple once he's out of the picture? Does he have any capable underlings, or would it suddenly be like the 90s all over again? We've already had the cancer scare; I was looking forward to old age and retirement being the only barriers to keeping him in charge permanently. Frickin' SEC... well if he deserves it they should throw the book at him; I just hope the judge and jury value their iPods and MacBooks more than, like, the law, or the truth or what have you... :rolleyes:

[johnee]

I guess if he had some smoking-gun type evidence, he would have used it in his defense. Instead he cried mommy and made a plea deal. I don't know if that means he does or doesn't have hard evidence.

Now something else to consider is the other defendant that did NOT make a plea deal. She might have firm evidence of Jobs involvement.

In any case, I feel Jobs, being CEO, should have personally made sure this (and ANY financial statement) was properly filed knowing people go to jail for things like this.

[Whiskerdreams]

Ya know,

I really, really hope this ain't true. I will feel pretty let down.

I think we all had a soft spot for the Jobster. If he turns out to be a another callous, self serving, arrogant, egocentric, (ok, i'm getting carried away)

then....I don't know.

I mean,

Bummer man.

Stevie, say it isn't so!

Man, he isn't gone yet... Let's give Steve the benefit of the doubt and not talk about him in the past tense like he's already in jail... :eek:

[longofest]

By not going after Apple it implies there is no person left on the board of directors to "go after" because Apple is run by the board.If they were to go after Jobs they never would have exonerated Apple.

I'm not sure that is correct. I believe that Apple itself can be sued as a company, and then in a quite separate instance, the SEC can go after individuals within Apple.

[feakbeak]

Even if what Anderson said is true, would it really matter? Jobs still isn't the one that fabricated false records of a board meeting.
Yeah, why would it matter if he lied to officials charged with investing possible illegal corporate activity? What's the big deal, right? :D

I'm impressed with Steve Jobs' skill at running Apple and providing market vision but that is completely irrelevant in relation to this investigation.

If he was involved with back-dating stock grants this is equivalent to stealing from the company, stealing from every shareholder of Apple stock. I never understood why people view burglars and shop-lifters as horrible people but a criminal that uses legal documents and accountants is only being a little mischievous. At least most criminals that commit traditional thievery do it out of desperation. White-collar crime is not done out of desperation - it's done out of greed and that's far worse in my opinion.

[avkills]

Steve Jobs and Apple cooperated fully with the SEC. Anderson pleaded the fifth; The SEC should either drop it or investigate Anderson more since he seems to be the one who wasn't initially being very cooperative and then all the sudden drops this bomb.

Maybe under good faith Apple should pay the stockholders the difference.

Since all of the happened before the new law was added; it makes sense that any wrong doing should be punished how ever it was before the new law.

-mark

[mccldwll]

If he was involved with back-dating stock grants this is equivalent to stealing from the company, stealing from every shareholder of Apple stock. I never understood why people view burglars and shop-lifters as horrible people but a criminal that uses legal documents and accountants is only being a little mischievous. At least most criminals that commit traditional thievery do it out of desperation. White-collar crime is not done out of desperation - it's done out of greed and that's far worse in my opinion.

Hello?? Do you understand the issue? It's not stealing. It's not greed. It's accounting. SJ didn't just give himself options at a lower price w/o the knowledge of the board. What he received was bargained for compensation. More options would have had to have been given if at a higher price to confer the same benefit. Generally, under existing rules, options grants are supposed to be at the price on the date of the grant, or if at a lower price, under accounting rules there's an immediate value, and expense to the corporation. If over the course of a week a stock goes up 10%, those options are worth 10% more a week later. Backdating confers an immediate benefit, even though not presently exercisable, and even if drop 10% a week later, becoming worthless. But substantively, nothing has changed. The options are there. The exercise price is the same. It's an accounting issue. It's wrong. It's now clearly against the rules. But it was fairly common back then in accounting circles. That doesn't make any of it right, but put it in the proper perspective.

[Wie Gehts]

Throw the book at him. Bring back Gil Amelio!!

[calculus]

Isn't what happens in these instances (backdating) a bit like being able to bet on a horse when the race has already finished?

[IJ Reilly]

I think it may have been mentioned already, but there's little doubt that whatever Fred Anderson had to say to the SEC, he said to them long ago -- or a least before they struck the plea agreement with him. It looks to me like Anderson is the guy who feels like he's been thrown under the bus and is getting back at Steve Jobs in the one way he can -- by making public statements he's already made to SEC investigators.

[WillGonz]

It's all a bunch of hear say. If former CFO Fred Anderson did not verify the Stock Options Grants with the board, then that is his error. It's Fred's fault for taking Steves word. Cover your a$$.

[mccldwll]

Isn't what happens in these instances (backdating) a bit like being able to bet on a horse when the race has already finished?

No. First, it may be like betting on a 10 lap race after the first 100 yards when there are restrictions on exercise. Second, it's betting with the same entity granting the options which is willing to give that little, potential head start, not with the general public. There is nothing wrong with getting options with a backdated lower price. It's how they are accounted for that's the problem.

[mccldwll]

Ignatius has it right.

[calculus]

There is nothing wrong with getting options with a backdated lower price.

Nothing legally wrong with it ...

[pyramid6]

There is something illegal about falsifying board meetings to get your back dated stock options. In my opinion, the only reason SJ is still Apple’s CEO is because if they fire him, Apple’s stock will lose 25% of it’s value. The thing that pisses me off is, SJ has more money than 100 of us will ever see in our lifetime,s and he still is involved in a scheme to get more. If he in innocent, then he will proven so, if he is guilty, then he needs to be punished for it.
I love Apple products as much as the next guy, but I’m tired of people being greedy. It’s the little guy that always pays.

[jonharris200]

"Why, Mr. Anderson? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something? For more than just your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. The temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desparately to justify an existence that is without meaning or porpose."

I really thought the last word was porpoise. :p

[mccldwll]

There is something illegal about falsifying board meetings to get your back dated stock options. In my opinion, the only reason SJ is still Apple’s CEO is because if they fire him, Apple’s stock will lose 25% of it’s value. The thing that pisses me off is, SJ has more money than 100 of us will ever see in our lifetime,s and he still is involved in a scheme to get more. If he in innocent, then he will proven so, if he is guilty, then he needs to be punished for it.
I love Apple products as much as the next guy, but I’m tired of people being greedy. It’s the little guy that always pays.

Envy? Or just Old Testament authoritarianism? Wake up. This is not about greed, and not about the little guy paying. These options were authorized by the board. This is about creative accounting and corporate shortcuts. The corporation transfers more value to the options grantee, at a lower cost to itself and less impact to the bottom line. As far as "falsifying board minutes", in the real world this is done all the time. Corporate bylaws generally require a special board meeting for a specific action. Directors often can't attend, so matters are discussed with all on the phone, agreed to, and minutes are created to make it appear that formalities are met. Formalities. It's a shortcut. It's wrong. But it's common. and generally no different than if all actually met as reflected in the minutes. If what was done was so, so terrible, Anderson wouldn't have been let off with a parking ticket.

[dp123]

I question the reliability of the claim that Anderson took the 5th. It seems unlikely that they would allow a settlement where he can remain a CFO and in corporate governance, force a repayment of backdating bonus, and a "small" fine if he refused to cooperate. Not to mention the SEC thanking Apple (which would in essence involve past execs) for fully cooperating.

But I'm not going to pay to read the article or research it further.

[Lyra]

This is just so damn pathetic and obvious...

Now I am not saying Bill Gate$ isn't sitting in his comfy chair and giggling while holding that famous tape apple gave him when Micro$oft went and screwed Steve behind his back.

What I am saying is that ever since the internet went online to the general public and news of all kind went loose, I have followed all kinds of news about Apple.

Over the past few years, the media (because of the success of the iPod) have been looking, almost dying to get some story on this once little company. Since Steve isn't one who likes to let secrets out into the open, it has been a unique and excellent adventure for Apple fans and users since the return of Steve Jobs.

But there will always be people who will hate EVERYTHING about Apple and Steve Jobs. Call it envy or whatever you find appropriate to call it, but the truth of the matter is, that someone, or a group of people is out to get Steve Jobs or just harm Apple. This has been going on for years, with idiotic lawsuits. Lawsuits that make no sense and still, the more Apple became famous, the dumber and more harmful lawsuits followed.

I don't care if Steve personally did whatever PeeCee users hope he did. I don't think he did, but that's just me. Cause I like Steve. I have my reasons, based on personal experience. Furthermore, the man has given you all a wonderful set of products and has still many more to give us. A lot of people don't actually listen to those who really LOVE working for Apple or ask any of Steve's friends. The news always find those who hate him or hold some kind of a grudge...

Anything else would not sell the news, now would it...

I hate people who are so high and mighty, thinking they are so much better, when they have never done a damn thing to make life a little more easier for others. Yet they all like to point fingers. Shame on all of them.
Shame on those who are out to destroy a company that made an impression, that did something others didn't dare to do. A company that STILL is considered to be original compared to others out there.

If we loose Steve Jobs, we'll loose Apple and that will be the end of it.

And here is how it would work :

If Steve is taken out of Apple, Apple will struggle for a bit, but then ultimately another scandal or the likes will drag the company into a position where other companies will try to buy it. Apple will be forced to sell, and SONY or in this case Micro$oft will be the highest bidders. Bill will buy it in what will be the most ironic and revolting twist of Apple's history.
The reason why Bill will be the buyer is simple... By that time, Micro$oft will be in such a deplorable state that compared to the MacOS and Linux variant OS's, Window$ will look like something from the early 80ies compared to the more advanced OS's out there. They would dismantle Apple, steal whatever technology and implement it into their own. OR in this case more like the BORG from Star Trek, simply assimilate it.

This is just one possible path Apple's future may lead...

Do you really want to drag a company to its death, just cause you want to have a heated debate about something you really don't care about at the end of the day?

I know I don't...

:apple:

[Amdahl]

Isn't what happens in these instances (backdating) a bit like being able to bet on a horse when the race has already finished?

Link(also referenced in post below): http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.com/2007/04/26/on-the-theory-that-backdatings-not-illegal-if-you-account-for-it-correctly/
Yes... CnnFN.com had a little story yesterday which basically explained that Options Backdating is effectively illegal because:

The ONLY reason to do options backdating is because you are trying to hide the accounting implications; that's why you can't find ANY companies that have done options backdating AND accounted for it correctly. If your plan is to account for it correctly, you just issue options at a given strike price, with no need for 'backdating.' And that has always been the law.

The SEC is not applying the law retroactively, because that is prohibited by the constitution.

[Amdahl]

It's all a bunch of hear say. If former CFO Fred Anderson did not verify the Stock Options Grants with the board, then that is his error. It's Fred's fault for taking Steves word. Cover your a$$.

No, not when Steve Jobs was the #1 beneficiary of the lie.

[Amdahl]

These options were authorized by the board. This is about creative accounting and corporate shortcuts.It doesn't matter if it was authorized by the board; it was illegal. Both the falsification of the board meeting, and the backdating without proper accounting. The stockholders are the victims.

The corporation transfers more value to the options grantee, at a lower cost to itself and less impact to the bottom line. As far as "falsifying board minutes", in the real world this is done all the time. Yes, 'transfers value.' From whom? The stockholders, that's who. And if they then hide that in the accounting, it is illegal.

[Amdahl]

I question the reliability of the claim that Anderson took the 5th. It seems unlikely that they would allow a settlement where he can remain a CFO and in corporate governance, force a repayment of backdating bonus, and a "small" fine if he refused to cooperate.

It makes sense if they also believed he was not the one primarily responsible. You will note they are pressing charges against the lawyer.

[Maccus Aurelius]

This is just so damn pathetic and obvious...

Now I am not saying Bill Gate$ isn't sitting in his comfy chair and giggling while holding that famous tape apple gave him when Micro$oft went and screwed Steve behind his back.

What I am saying is that ever since the internet went online to the general public and news of all kind went loose, I have followed all kinds of news about Apple.

Over the past few years, the media (because of the success of the iPod) have been looking, almost dying to get some story on this once little company. Since Steve isn't one who likes to let secrets out into the open, it has been a unique and excellent adventure for Apple fans and users since the return of Steve Jobs.

But there will always be people who will hate EVERYTHING about Apple and Steve Jobs. Call it envy or whatever you find appropriate to call it, but the truth of the matter is, that someone, or a group of people is out to get Steve Jobs or just harm Apple. This has been going on for years, with idiotic lawsuits. Lawsuits that make no sense and still, the more Apple became famous, the dumber and more harmful lawsuits followed.

I don't care if Steve personally did whatever PeeCee users hope he did. I don't think he did, but that's just me. Cause I like Steve. I have my reasons, based on personal experience. Furthermore, the man has given you all a wonderful set of products and has still many more to give us. A lot of people don't actually listen to those who really LOVE working for Apple or ask any of Steve's friends. The news always find those who hate him or hold some kind of a grudge...

Anything else would not sell the news, now would it...

I hate people who are so high and mighty, thinking they are so much better, when they have never done a damn thing to make life a little more easier for others. Yet they all like to point fingers. Shame on all of them.
Shame on those who are out to destroy a company that made an impression, that did something others didn't dare to do. A company that STILL is considered to be original compared to others out there.

If we loose Steve Jobs, we'll loose Apple and that will be the end of it.

And here is how it would work :

If Steve is taken out of Apple, Apple will struggle for a bit, but then ultimately another scandal or the likes will drag the company into a position where other companies will try to buy it. Apple will be forced to sell, and SONY or in this case Micro$oft will be the highest bidders. Bill will buy it in what will be the most ironic and revolting twist of Apple's history.
The reason why Bill will be the buyer is simple... By that time, Micro$oft will be in such a deplorable state that compared to the MacOS and Linux variant OS's, Window$ will look like something from the early 80ies compared to the more advanced OS's out there. They would dismantle Apple, steal whatever technology and implement it into their own. OR in this case more like the BORG from Star Trek, simply assimilate it.

This is just one possible path Apple's future may lead...

Do you really want to drag a company to its death, just cause you want to have a heated debate about something you really don't care about at the end of the day?

I know I don't...

:apple:

While I too would not want to see Apple be negatively affected by the loss of Jobs, if he is guilty we're just going to have to suck it up and deal with it, just as he would have to.

I read that Jobs actually dismissed these stocks and instead got restricted shares, therefore missing the 3+million payoff that Anderson himself got. Is this true? Would this have any effect on anything?

[dp123]

Jobs want not the primary beneficiary. In fact, everything that Anderson relates is solely in relation to HIS OWN benefits, not Jobs.

Backdating occurs frequently. It is not solely to hide accounting. It is a very rational tool. If the backdate corresponds to a company event and shows the exec was responsible for growth relating to that event to the future, it makes sense as a compensation reward. It is not illegal.

Your response to my post makes no sense. The SEC doesn't make favorable settlements with people who refuse to cooperate. I know for a fact that Heinen has been deposed multiple times, and she has to face charges. To suggest that Fred didn't talk to the SEC seems rather implausible.

There are several other errors not worth mentioning.

[mccldwll]

[QUOTE=Amdahl;3590312
Yes, 'transfers value.' From whom? The stockholders, that's who. And if they then hide that in the accounting, it is illegal.[/QUOTE]

The stockholders???? Sure, in the same sense that any compensation is transferred value from shareholders. This was compensation. It was accounted for incorrectly (improperly), not to hide the grant of options, but to keep the grant price differential from becoming a compensation expense, against the bottom line. If anything, the shareholders at that time were helped. Buyers may have paid a bit more. Apple would have paid more taxes, SJ less.

[MacbookSwitcher]

"Why, Mr. Anderson? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something? For more than just your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. The temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desparately to justify an existence that is without meaning or porpose."

Muahahaha. That was awesome

[Amdahl]

I read that Jobs actually dismissed these stocks and instead got restricted shares, therefore missing the 3+million payoff that Anderson himself got. Is this true? Would this have any effect on anything?

Yes, that's a bit like saying "Yes, I robbed the bank, but I put the money back before anyone noticed it was missing."

[TechnoLawyer]

"Why, Mr. Anderson? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something? For more than just your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. The temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desparately to justify an existence that is without meaning or porpose."

Love the Matrix quote! The problem is that if the SEC pursues action against Steve Jobs it will hurt investors because Apple's share will plummet. The SEC is supposed to protect investors. This situation is unique to Apple because of Jobs' indispensible nature. Also, as Anderson himself seems to suggest, his conversations with Jobs were verbal, which means a he said/he said scenario. Without further corroborating evidence, the SEC won't bother.

[Amdahl]

Jobs want not the primary beneficiary. In fact, everything that Anderson relates is solely in relation to HIS OWN benefits, not Jobs.The quantity of options received by Jobs' was much larger than any of those received by the others.

Backdating occurs frequently. It is not solely to hide accounting. It is a very rational tool. If the backdate corresponds to a company event and shows the exec was responsible for growth relating to that event to the future, it makes sense as a compensation reward. It is not illegal.Gee, that sounds like you're trying to justify insider trading. Which is also illegal.

Your response to my post makes no sense. The SEC doesn't make favorable settlements with people who refuse to cooperate. I know for a fact that Heinen has been deposed multiple times, and she has to face charges. To suggest that Fred didn't talk to the SEC seems rather implausible.The 5th Amendment is a constitutional right; exercising it may appear suspicious, but it doesn't mean that the person using it is the most guilty party. Anderson, if he invoked it, was simply refusing to talk to the SEC until he knew what they were looking to do to him. When they offered their settlement, he took it and at that point would feel free to speak without fear of being prosecuted for what he said.

There are several other errors not worth mentioning.Oh, well, I'll just admit I was wrong on the points you didn't raise.

[Amdahl]

http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.com/2007/04/26/on-the-theory-that-backdatings-not-illegal-if-you-account-for-it-correctly/

Explains that you don't backdate unless you're trying to improperly account.

Other entries have said that Jobs received 7,500,000 options in the grant that is under investigation. Here's a nice quote of the investigation into Steve Jobs at Pixar:
The backdating at Pixar was in some respects even more extreme than at Apple: top officers were repeatedly granted options on dates when Pixar stock was at its lowest point for the year. On the other hand, unlike the situation at Apple, none of the Pixar options went to Jobs himself. At Apple, the special committee also acknowledged that Jobs may have actually been involved in “recommending” dates for options grants — a circumstance that, on its face, suggests involvement in either backdating or springloading. (The latter term refers to the suspect practice of executives granting options to themselves or others just before new market events are about to give the stock price a big boost, as the executives know due to inside information.)

The story line at both Apple and Pixar appears to be that Jobs, the notorious micromanager who headed both companies at the time of the backdating, did not understand the legal or accounting ramifications of backdating. Interestingly enough, virtually Jobs’s only compensation at either company during this period was coming from the Apple options whose workings he so poorly understood. (During the relevant years, his salary at Apple was famously just $1 per year, while at Pixar it was about $55 per year.)

The thing that puzzles me most is this: If you don’t understand the accounting ramifications of backdating, why do it?

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, that's a bit like saying "Yes, I robbed the bank, but I put the money back before anyone noticed it was missing."

That's a little overheated, don't you think? Nobody stole anything.

Like any public company, Apple is responsible for adhering to certain methods of accounting, which they didn't in this case. The net result was they over-reported profits. It's not good, but theft it was not, and it should not be equated with theft unless you're gunning for the hyperbole prize or something.

[Amdahl]

That's a little overheated, don't you think? Nobody stole anything.

Like any public company, Apple is responsible for adhering to certain methods of accounting, which they didn't in this case. The net result was they over-reported profits. It's not good, but theft it was not, and it should not be equated with theft unless you're gunning for the hyperbole prize or something.

Then why is it illegal? That question is not for my amusement; it is for yours. If you can explain why this shouldn't be illegal, and that over-reporting profits isn't theft from the shareholders (a la Enron, Worldcom, or Tyco), then let's hear it. The ex-CEOs of Worldcom & Tyco are in jail.

The ex-CEO of Fannie Mae was being investigated for UNDER-reporting profits, because it hid the underlying risk of the business from shareholders. Since he is well connected, it isn't likely he is going to jail. But he was forced to resign.

[IJ Reilly]

Then why is it illegal?

I'm not sure I understand this question. Is only theft illegal?

[mccldwll]

Then why is it illegal? That question is not for my amusement; it is for yours. If you can explain why this shouldn't be illegal, and that over-reporting profits isn't theft from the shareholders (a la Enron, Worldcom, or Tyco), then let's hear it. The ex-CEOs of Worldcom & Tyco are in jail.

The ex-CEO of Fannie Mae was being investigated for UNDER-reporting profits, because it hid the underlying risk of the business from shareholders. Since he is well connected, it isn't likely he is going to jail. But he was forced to resign.


You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you. Enron, Tyco, Fannie Mae.....gimmee a break.

[MikeTheC]

This seeming "all-eggs-in-one-basket" dependence on Steve Jobs unnerves me more and more as time goes by. Am I the only one here who feels that way?

[Whistleway]

Steve Jobs and Apple cooperated fully with the SEC. Anderson pleaded the fifth; The SEC should either drop it or investigate Anderson more since he seems to be the one who wasn't initially being very cooperative and then all the sudden drops this bomb.


huh? cooperation is not by choice. and cooperation after a guilty act doesn't mean free ride.

[Babasyzygy]

I love Apple products as much as the next guy, but I’m tired of people being greedy. It’s the little guy that always pays.

You must not be an AAPL shareholder.

I am - and I'll tell you, if the last 10 years of Steve Jobs has been abusing me as a shareholder, all I can say is - hurt me bad, Steve! Hurt me worse!

What Steve Jobs did with AAPL bought me a nice house free and clear, just for showing a little faith in Apple by investing when AAPL was $14/share 5-6 years ago, where it is now $200+/share (correcting for the 2-for-1 split 2 years ago).

There are no "little guys" who were hurt here, drop the pathetic little whiny success envy. Almost alone among super-compensated CEOs, he deserves rich compensation.

[gnasher729]

What Steve Jobs did with AAPL bought me a nice house free and clear, just for showing a little faith in Apple by investing when AAPL was $14/share 5-6 years ago, where it is now $200+/share (correcting for the 2-for-1 split 2 years ago).

Which makes this case a bit different from Enron, where for example employees of some companies bought by Enron had their whole retirement funds turned into Enron shares, which turned into worthless mush shortly afterwards, and all that at a time when the execs in the company already _knew_ that it was worthless.

[eatapc]

Even if what Anderson said is true, would it really matter? Jobs still isn't the one that fabricated false records of a board meeting.Correct. I don't see how Anderson's press release implicates Jobs. He warned Jobs that the dating of the options grants would involve "accounting issues and potential consequences." OK, so what? Isn't it Anderson's responsibility, as CFO, to handle the accounting issues? Isn't that the CFO's department? Anderson did not say that Jobs knew of falsified documents; he claimed only that Jobs told him the Board was "on board" with the dates. This was after months of testy negotiations. Which brings us to Heinen -- who the SEC is going after. Jobs did not appear to conceal anything about this greedy, stupid episode. He ought to be embarrassed by it, but Jobs is not the type to feel embarrassment for more than a nanosecond.

I have no doubt that Jobs' infamous "reality distortion field" and abrasive, abusive, egotistical personality contributed to this managerial failure, but I don't see how Anderson can get Jobs in trouble unless he testifies that he cooked the books on Jobs' orders and that Heinen likewise fabricated the Board of Directors' minutes on direct orders from Jobs, with Jobs understanding the implications. Since the SEC already let Jobs off scott free, that likelihood is infinitesimal. Anderson and Heinen screwed up; Jobs screwed up as a manager, but without criminal intent.

[twoodcc]

i wish this thing would just go away